livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
We asked people on both sides of the gun debate for proposals they all could live with: Here's what happened
WASHINGTON -- When talk turns to school kids and shootings, the two sides of America's great gun debate usually disagree on so many things.
Give guns and firearms training to willing teachers, one side says.
Not happening, says the other.
So what happens when Second Amendment purists and gun-control advocates are brought together over a month to see if they at least can understand one another? Can they agree on ways to reduce gun violence?
The point of this dialogue journalism was not to change anyone's mind. Rather, it was for participants to better understand how and why people with opposite views in a politically divisive time come to their separate opinions. The conversation, occurring practically around the clock and across three time zones, took place in the aftermath of the school shooting that killed 17 at a Parkland, Florida, high school in February.
When the dialogue was over, we picked six people in the group -- three each from opposite ends of the gun-control spectrum -- and worked with them to see how they'd recommend dealing with excessive gun violence.
There was no right or wrong -- but there was a realization that for change to happen, the two sides might have to find agreement somewhere. Both sides seemed to acknowledge, for example, that as much as some gun-control advocates want to ban certain semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, the political will currently falls on the side of gun rights, not gun bans.
But there are other recommendations that emerged. These proposed solutions illustrate not only the policy differences between the two sides in the nation's gun debate but also their separate worldviews.
More at ...
We asked people on both sides of the gun debate for proposals they all could live with: Here's what happened
WASHINGTON -- When talk turns to school kids and shootings, the two sides of America's great gun debate usually disagree on so many things.
Give guns and firearms training to willing teachers, one side says.
Not happening, says the other.
So what happens when Second Amendment purists and gun-control advocates are brought together over a month to see if they at least can understand one another? Can they agree on ways to reduce gun violence?
The point of this dialogue journalism was not to change anyone's mind. Rather, it was for participants to better understand how and why people with opposite views in a politically divisive time come to their separate opinions. The conversation, occurring practically around the clock and across three time zones, took place in the aftermath of the school shooting that killed 17 at a Parkland, Florida, high school in February.
When the dialogue was over, we picked six people in the group -- three each from opposite ends of the gun-control spectrum -- and worked with them to see how they'd recommend dealing with excessive gun violence.
There was no right or wrong -- but there was a realization that for change to happen, the two sides might have to find agreement somewhere. Both sides seemed to acknowledge, for example, that as much as some gun-control advocates want to ban certain semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, the political will currently falls on the side of gun rights, not gun bans.
But there are other recommendations that emerged. These proposed solutions illustrate not only the policy differences between the two sides in the nation's gun debate but also their separate worldviews.
More at ...
We asked people on both sides of the gun debate for proposals they all could live with: Here's what happened
